David Cameron's northern rebels

David Davis: happy to speak his mind. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

The decision last week by 53 Conservative MPs to join forces with Labour and vote against the Government's position that the EU budget should be frozen in real terms, and in favour of a Conservative-inspired amendment calling for a real terms cut, did two things for David Cameron.

Firstly, it once again highlighted that despite all the progress the party has attempted to make, any mention of the word 'Europe' has the capacity to tear the Conservatives apart in much the same way that led to the downfall of Thatcher and the fatal undermining of John Major.

More broadly, it served to trigger a renewed bout of debate not about the Government's central economic and financial strategies but about David Cameron's apparent weakness, vis-à-vis his own party at a time when things should be looking up with falling unemployment and growth finally being injected into UK PLC.

In May, the expert extraordinaire of parliamentary voting behaviour, Professor Philip Cowley of Nottingham University, in conjunction with his research fellow, Mark Stuart, published research showing that the 2010-12 Parliament saw the highest number of rebellions by government MPs of any session in the post-war era. It is fairly extraordinary for a Prime Minister in his first term to face such difficulty.

In part this is a natural by-product of coalition. Where a Prime Minister would usually have total freedom to dangle the prospect of ministerial jobs in front of backbench MPs, Cameron does not enjoy that freedom. He has to have Lib Dems filling ministerial posts, and they are eyed with jealousy by those Conservatives who might have hoped to hold them instead.

David Cameron. Not a lot of room for manoeuvre. Photograph: Reuters

This is compounded by the introduction of elections to select committees and the establishment of the backbench business committee, enabling backbenchers to make their mark and forge their way onto lucrative committees, in some cases even chairing them, free from the need to cosy up to the Whips office.

But to blame the Prime Minister's internal party difficulties all on the dynamics of coalition politics would be far too simplistic.

Firstly, there's the 'aloofness' factor. Prime Ministers might not like it, but they owe their position within our Parliamentary system of Government to maintaining the goodwill and support of their own MPs. Such goodwill and support needs cultivating and working on, listening to the concerns and thoughts of backbenchers in the Commons tea rooms and giving them nuggets to show that the leadership not only listens but responds.

For David Cameron however, his problem as reported by the Economist recently, is that too many Conservative MPs have concluded that he has a style of leadership that makes him seem aloof. Arguing that the whole Downing Street operation remains "too narrow", Andrew Percy, the erstwhile Conservative MP for Brigg and Goole, spoke for many in the party on Radio 4's 'The World This Weekend' when he urged the Number 10 machine to listen more to its backbenchers and give them much greater opportunities to contribute to policy-making.

But there is also a sense of loyalty being taken for granted. Time after time backbenchers have found themselves having to defend to their constituents and the press unpopular causes such as the pastie tax, Andrew Mitchell and 'pleb gate' and the sell-off of the forestry estate, only to see their defence of such problems undermined by u-turns and backing down. As David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth and chair of the Welsh Affairs select committee has told his local newspaper:

There comes a point when it is becoming more difficult to remain so loyal.

So who are the Government's northern rebels? A glance at the Cowley research reveals that four Conservative MPs from the three northern regions have defied their Whips and voted against their own party.

David Nuttall, the MP for Bury North used his maiden speech in 2010 to declare that he would be a "strong and independent advocate for my constituents in Bury" and so he has. Voting records show that he has rebelled against his own leadership on almost 17% of all Commons votes in which he has taken part since 2010.

Philip Davies, elected Conservative MP for Shipley in West Yorkshire in 2005, has made a career of causing mischief, frequently staying in the Commons on Fridays to scupper bids by backbenchers on all sides to get private members' legislation on to the statue books. A controversial figure, having recently called for the re-introduction of the death penalty, he has rebelled in just over 19% of all parliamentary votes he's taken part in since 2010.

Former teacher Andrew Percy, who is Conservative MP for Brigg and Goole, seems to have lost the discipline that he no doubt employed in the classroom. A frequent critic of Government policy on everything from the static caravan tax to regional pay, since 2010 he has voted against the Government in 9% of the votes in which he has taken part.

And last, but by no means least, David Davis. The long-time MP for Haltemprice and Howden who challenged David Cameron to the leadership remains a threat to the Prime Minister, not least because he has a straight-talking manner and breaks the 'Tory toff' stereotype that the current leadership are finding hard to shake off. Having rebelled against the party leadership in over 9% of the votes since 2010, his independent streak could cause problems for David Cameron if he fails to improve the party's fortunes in the polls.

But does any of this matter? Or is it a load of internal Westminster nonsense that doesn't resonate with the outside world?

It used to be said that divided parties don't win elections, but does that still hold true?

Andrew Hawkins, Chairman of the polling company, ComRes argues that the impact of rebellions is perhaps not as great as it once was. Speaking to the Northerner he explained:

The impact of rebellions on party brands appears to have diminished since John Major's so-called 'eighteen-month winter' in the 1990s, but there are two big differences today: Coalition Government seems to be able to accommodate rebellion without the same degree of panic – perhaps flexibility is more acceptable? - and secondly David Cameron's leadership has not come under direct challenge. Yet.

In a warning to the Conservative whips, however, he continued:

That said, rebellions are like committing adultery: the more you do it, the easier it becomes. If the scale and number of rebellions continue to increase it could be extremely damaging for the Tories to go into the next election being seen as more divided than Labour. Perceived unity is second only to competence as a necessary requirement for electoral success.

For Gideon Skinner the head of political research at Ipsos MORI, meanwhile, rebellions are never a good thing but David Cameron is still widely seen as a better bet for PM than Ed Miliband. Skinner explained to the Northerner:

Back in September 2011, Labour was seen as more divided than the Conservatives (by 55% to 49%), One year on the positions are reversed – now 49% say Labour is divided, but 62% think the Conservatives are (the Liberal Democrats incidentally are worst of all). Nor will this be helped by the fact that only one in four think the coalition as a whole is working as a united team. But having said that, David Cameron is still the leader with the strongest support from his own voters: 68% of Conservatives are satisfied with the way he is doing his job, compared to 58% of Labour voters who are happy with Ed Miliband.

About this article

David Cameron's northern rebels

This article was published on
the Guardian website
at 02.00 EST on Friday 9 November 2012.
It was last modified at 06.30 EDT on Wednesday 21 May 2014.
It was first published at 02.10 EST on Friday 9 November 2012.